Thursday, June 29, 2006

Here is the issue, with regard both to the dioceses seeking Alternative Primatial Oversight, as well (for example) with the letter from Bp. Louttit I posted below.

Recently, Bishop Griswold said about the dioceses seeking APO, that such seeking is “consistent with their implicit intention of walking apart from the Episcopal Church.”

I would agree. But here's the crux of the matter: what happens when the Episcopal Church is determined to walk apart from the Anglican Communion? Is it obvious that every bishop and every diocese is obliged likewise to walk with ECUSA apart from the Communion, and apart from the overwhelming majority of the rest of Christendom, in this matter?

The principle I am working with: our allegiance is to the undivided, universal Church, the mystical body of Christ. We must therefore submit our judgment, not to the most immediate institutional expression of the Church within which we find ourselves, but to the broadest institutional expression, the one most in accord with the whole Church. ("Catholic" / "kata holos" / "in accord with the whole.") When, therefore, ECUSA is at odds with the Communion, our allegiance must be to the Communion. When the Communion is at odds with the judgment of the undivided and Universal Church, our allegiance must be to the latter.

Another germane point, made by Father Thorpus in the comments on Bp. Louttit's letter (below) is that theologically we believe in three (major) orders: bishops, priests, and deacons. The fundamental, sacramental units constituting the One Church are jurisdictions under the oversight of bishops (i.e. dioceses), themselves constituted by parishes, etc. Bishops are the chief pastors of their dioceses. And the One Church is governed by the collegium of bishops. The rest (archdeacons, archbishops, primates, metropolitans, monsignors, cardinals, etc.) are accretions instituted by man (as opposed to the orders of bishops, priests and deacons instituted by God himself) for practical reasons. I'm not saying that archdeacons, metropolitans and the rest are BAD, I'm just saying that they weren't instituted by God, like the threefold apostolic ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons. Exceptions, in terms of honor, are those sees with apostolical foundations, Rome being preeminent among them, as is attested by the fathers of the Undivided Church, East and West, of the first millennium. But those preeminences are preeminences of honor. This is a point on which Anglicans, historically, have disagreed with Roman Catholics.

I'm sort of rambling now. But I'm still stuck in Alabama with little else to do. The main point I want to make is this: our institutional allegiance is to the broadest doctrinal expression of the One Church. That's a big part of what it means to be a "catholic" Christian. And that's the mistake I believe Bp. Louttit is (and other ECUSA bishops are) making by saying that they themselves personally believe the catholic teaching on human sexuality, but they submit their judgment to the ECUSA episcopal collegium. They (especially as bishops) are not bound by the ECUSA episcopal collegium when it is at odds with the Catholic episcopal collegium, as it now is with regard to sexual moral doctrine (as well, by the way, as it is with regard to the doctrines of Apostolic Order, i.e. the priesting of women).

He will, of course, be ministering within the USA. I knews this was coming. A little bird (in holy orders, with close ties to the decision makers in this thing) told me. Given this strange consecration, I'm glad General Convention went the way it did. In other words, I'm pretty sure this consecration would have happened regardless of how General Convention went. And had ECUSA complied with the Windsor Report at Gen Con, this consecration would have been in a rather worse light.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

A letter from Bishop Louttit of Georgia follows. Bp. Louttit ordained me. I love him and have a deep and abiding respect for him personally, as well (of course) as for his office. He is wise, intelligent and humble. In many ways I think his is a paragon of godly episcopacy. But I believe his thinking, as expressed in this letter, is fundamentally flawed. While stating that he himself holds the catholic (or orthodox or whatever you want to call it) position on human sexuality, he says that he nevertheless recognizes that he is in the minority within the American Anglican collegium of bishops, and he concludes thus:

"Different from some friends, that I respect, I believe what Jesus saidabout not dividing His Body the Church outweighs my personalinterpretation of the text on sexual morality."

But Bishop Louttit's teaching on sexual morality is the same as the teaching of the Church Catholic. He is in the catholic / universal majority. ECUSA / TEC IS NOT THE CHURCH. It is but an insignificant and heretical backwater of the Universal Church which runs throughout the world and throughout time, and which transcends not only ECUSA, but Anglicanism as well. The teaching of this Church, the only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, is what matters. And ECUSA is deviating from the teaching concerning human sexuality of the Universal Church. It is ECUSA that is in rebellion, and ECUSA that is schismatic. It is ECUSA that is dividing the Body of the Lord Jesus, and it is those within ECUSA who have pushed this novel teaching on sexuality who will have to answer for the divisions in the Body that have resulted.

St. Paul said "I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, thatall of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1.10). What mind and what judgment, if not the mind and judgment of Christ himself? Bp. Louttit is implying that the mind and judgment of Christ himself are expressed by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, that Christ uses the judgments of ECUSA to admonish and correct (and contradict) the clear and consistent teaching of the saints in the Church Catholic, throughout the world, and throughout time, since the days of the Apostles themselves. I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous notion. Our allegiance to ECUSA (and to Anglicanism) MUST ALWAYS BE subordinate to our alleigiance to the Bride of Christ, to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

As Archbishop Williams pointed out just yesterday, "Unless you think that social and legal considerations should be allowed to resolve religious disputes... there has to be a recognition that religious bodies have to deal with the question in their own terms. Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching." ECUSA has not done that. ECUSA has abandoned any pretense of being a part of the Catholic Church. This can be clearly seen in ECUSA's having failed, to date, to present a coherent theological apologia for its actions, demonstrated from Scripture and from Tradition. ECUSA hasn't done so because it can't.

One is tempted to ask, following Paul in 1 Cor. 1.13: Was ECUSA crucified for you? Or were you baptized into ECUSA? No. You were baptized into the one Lord's death and resurrection, and thereby incorporated into his one mystical Body. And that Body is not coterminous, thanks be to God, with ECUSA.

Here is Bishop Louttit's letter:

The Reverend Clergy and LaityThe Diocese of Georgia

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

I copy two Bishop's letters to their congregations. I love and trust both Bishops.

The two letters see the actions of the General Convention very differently. I do not see how both can be correct. However, I believe Bishop John Howard of Florida is recording better than I could what I believe General Convention did.

I served on the Special Committee on the "Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion." I have read all of The Windsor Report a number of times! I have heard hours and hours of arguments and discussion of it's meaning on disputed points. I believe the General Convention answered the way Windsor asked us to if we wish to walk together. Except we strengthened the scope of what we asked Standing Committees and Bishops to honor as Bishop Howard, a lawyer, states.

I have worked with Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schori. I look forward to her ministry as Presiding Bishop. She is very thoughtful, highly educated, and listens carefully to the person speaking to her. She is a pastor! She has excellent leadership qualities.

Her daughter, an Air Force Pilot, when stationed at Mood A.F.B. attended Christ the King. Bishop Jefferts-Schori has visited Christ the King in our diocese.

She is liberal in the sense she believes women can be ordained and that monogamous homosexuals should be eligible for ordination if they meet the other qualifications. I think the majority of deputies elected by our dioceses favor the ordination of monogamous homosexuals as do a majority of living and voting Bishops (retired and active). I think I am in the minority.

Different from some friends, that I respect, I believe what Jesus said about not dividing His Body the Church outweighs my personal interpretation of the text on sexual morality.

It has begun continues. In addition to the diocese of Fort Worth, the dioceses of Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, and South Carolina have now requested oversight from a primate from an Anglican province other than the American. Read about it all on Titusonenine. Interesting times, friends.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Representative of my cautious hope today about Anglicanism in America. But don't stop praying for conversion of heart for all within ECUSA, especially Frank Griswold and all of the bishops and clergy in error and schism.

Psalm 126

When the Lord turned again the captivity of Sion: then were we like unto them that dream.

Then was our mouth filled with laughter: and our tongue with joy.

Then said they among the heathen: The Lord hath done great things for them.

Yea, the Lord hath done great things for us already: whereof we rejoice.

Turn our captivity, O Lord: as the rivers in the south.

They that sow in tears: shall reap in joy.

He that now goeth on his way weeping, and beareth forth good seed: shall doubtless come again with joy, and bring his sheaves with him.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son: And to the Holy Ghost.

As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be: World without end. Amen.

Friends, below are excerpts from the proposal released today by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The more salient bits I have emboldened for your convenience. It is a very interesting document. I think we see in it the pretty definite agenda of Lambeth 2008. I only hope the orthodox in ECUSA can hold together that long. We've got interesting, turbulent days ahead my friends.

It is possible – indeed, it is imperative – to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage, to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation, and still to believe that this doesn’t settle the question of whether the Christian Church has the freedom, on the basis of the Bible, and its historic teachings, to bless homosexual partnerships as a clear expression of God’s will. That is disputed among Christians, and, as a bare matter of fact, only a small minority would answer yes to the question.

Unless you think that social and legal considerations should be allowed to resolve religious disputes – which is a highly risky assumption if you also believe in real freedom of opinion in a diverse society – there has to be a recognition that religious bodies have to deal with the question in their own terms. Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching. And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about ‘inclusion’, this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people.Insteadit is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against – and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.

And this is where the real issue for Anglicans arises. How do we as Anglicans deal with this issue ‘in our own terms’? And what most Anglicans worldwide have said is that it doesn’t help to behave as if the matter had been resolved when in fact it hasn’t.

The recent resolutions of the General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report...

[Saying that they are out of full communion with ECUSA, some Anglican Churches are] saying that, whatever the presenting issue, no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions – and sacramental actions in particular - just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches. It isn’t a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences – and that actions believed in good faith to be ‘prophetic’ in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences.

But let’s suppose that there isn’t that level of clarity about the significance of some divisive issue. If we do still believe that unity is generally a way of coming closer to revealed truth (‘only the whole Church knows the whole Truth’ as someone put it), we now face some choices about what kind of Church we as Anglicans are or want to be.

The Church worldwide is not simply the sum total of local communities. It has a cross-cultural dimension that is vital to its health and it is naïve to think that this can survive without some structures to make it possible.

The basic challenge that practically all the churches worldwide, of whatever denomination, so often have to struggle with is, ‘Are we joining together in one act of Holy Communion, one Eucharist, throughout the world, or are we just celebrating our local identities and our personal preferences?’

The reason Anglicanism is worth bothering with is because it has tried to find a way of being a Church that is neither tightly centralised nor just a loose federation of essentially independent bodies – a Church that is seeking to be a coherent family of communities meeting to hear the Bible read, to break bread and share wine as guests of Jesus Christ, and to celebrate a unity in worldwide mission and ministry. That is what the word ‘Communion’ means for Anglicans, and it is a vision that has taken clearer shape in many of our ecumenical dialogues.

But what our Communion lacks is a set of adequately developed structures which is able to cope with the diversity of views that will inevitably arise in a world of rapid global communication and huge cultural variety. The tacit conventions between us need spelling out – not for the sake of some central mechanism of control but so that we have ways of being sure we’re still talking the same language, aware of belonging to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ. It is becoming urgent to work at what adequate structures for decision-making might look like. We need ways of translating this underlying sacramental communion into a more effective institutional reality...

The idea of a 'covenant' between local Churches... is one method that has been suggested, and it seems to me the best way forward. It is necessarily an 'opt-in' matter. Those Churches that were prepared to take this on as an expression of their responsibility to each other would limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness; and some might not be willing to do this. We could arrive at a situation where there were 'constituent' Churches in covenant in the Anglican Communion and other 'churches in association', which were still bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources, but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion, and not sharing the same constitutional structures. The relation would not be unlike that between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, for example. The 'associated' Churches would have no direct part in the decision making of the 'constituent' Churches...

...we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each other. And it is not going to look exactly like anything we have known so far. Some may find this unfamiliar future conscientiously unacceptable, and that view deserves respect. But if we are to continue to be any sort of 'Catholic' church, if we believe that we are answerable to something more than our immediate environment and its priorities and are held in unity by something more than just the consensus of the moment, we have some very hard work to do to embody this more clearly. The next Lambeth Conference ought to address this matter directly and fully as part of its agenda.

Being an Anglican in the way I have sketched... provides at least for ways of sharing responsibility and making decisions that will hold and that will be mutually intelligible. No-one can impose the canonical and structural changes that will be necessary. All that I have said above should make it clear that the idea of an Archbishop of Canterbury resolving any of this by decree is misplaced, however tempting for many. The Archbishop of Canterbury presides and convenes in the Communion, and may do what this document attempts to do, which is to outline the theological framework in which a problem should be addressed; but he must always act collegially, with the bishops of his own local Church and with the primates and the other instruments of communion.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

[Somehow I missed the following letter during my browsing and what not the last couple of days.]

23rd June, A.D. 2006

A Pastoral Letter from the Moderator

TO ALL THE BELOVED OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION NETWORK:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

A new day is dawning. It is a new day for all of us who understand ourselves to be faithful and orthodox Anglicans, whether within the Episcopal Church or gone out from it.

It is with sadness, but also with anticipation, that I write to you now that the General Convention of the Episcopal Church has provided the clarity for which we have long prayed. By almost every assessment the General Convention has embraced the course of “walking apart.”

I have often said to you that the decisive moment in contemporary Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion history occurred at General Convention 2003. At that time, in the words of the Primates, the Episcopal Church took action that would “tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level.”

Since that time, the tear has widened. While we had hoped that this Church would repent and return to received Faith and Order, General Convention 2006 clearly failed to submit to the call, the spirit or the requirements of the Windsor Report. The middle has collapsed. For that part of the Network working constitutionally within ECUSA as over against the dioceses represented by the thirty progressive bishops who issued their Statement of Conscience, we are two churches under one roof.

Even before the close of Convention, Network and Windsor bishops began disassociating themselves from the inadequate Windsor resolution, and thus far one Network diocese has formally requested alternative primatial oversight.

More initiatives are underway. Pastoral and apostolic care has been promised without regard to geography. All I can tell you is that the shape of this care will depend on a very near-range international meeting. Other actions will follow upon continuing conversations with those at the highest levels of the Anglican Communion. Over the course of the month of July, many of the things we have longed for will, I believe, come to pass or be clearly in view for all.

The Anglican Communion Network has never been more united. We are gaining strength, both domestically and internationally. This is the time for biblically orthodox Anglicans to hang together, supporting one another in solidarity, in prayer and with expectancy.

My prayers are with you all, especially those whose plight is most difficult and whose patience is most worn. Pray for me and for all the leadership in Network, Episcopal Church, and Anglican Communion, and most especially for the Archbishop of Canterbury in this crucial moment in modern Anglican history. Again I say to you that a new day is dawning.

Faithfully in Christ Jesus,

Bob Pittsburgh+

The Rt. Rev. Robert Wm. Duncan Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network

Friday, June 23, 2006

Most Anglicans, Lutherans,Presbyterians and Methodists, who regard themselves as “orthodox” or“biblical” or “evangelical” or all of these, seem to regard thepresence of women as ordained clergy as being in general a good thing.In making this assessment they usually are thinking of the ability, thegraces and gifts, the charm and compassion of the women and theirdedication to the tasks in which they engage. No-one in a rightful mindwould doubt that most women clergy are very able and committedministers, often more gifted then their male counterparts.

However,if the assessment is based, not on the dedication and ability of thewomen which are very real as we all know, but on the impact that womenin leadership and headship roles have upon church doctrine, worship anddiscipline then the assessment will need to be modified and possiblychanged.

The reasons for making this suggestion may be stated in these preliminary terms:

1.The admittance of women as pastors of the flock raises problems aboutthe way the church is to read Scripture and to interpret it as “Word ofGod” today. There is very clear teaching in the New Testament, whichasserts that a man is to be head of the family and also head of thecongregation of Christ’s flock. To have women in this position ofheadship requires that the teaching of the N.T. be regarded as, atleast in some cases, culturally conditioned. If so, where does thiscultural conditioning begin and end? Any innovation today, which has nospecific sanction in Scripture, can be brought into the church by theclaim that where it, or something like it, is forbidden in Scripturethe whole passage needs to be interpreted by experts to show the amountof cultural and societal conditioning present.

2. The presenceof a growing number of women as Ministers has led to the demand thatthe received biblical language used for naming and addressing GOD bemodified so as to be in harmony with the presence of female clergyspeaking to God. (If men address God as Father, why cannot women – asdoes the new Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA – address God as Mother!)That is, to hear masculine terms for Deity from a female minister isdeemed odd and she should be able, it is said, to use feminine terms,or at least, a mixture of names and descriptions in order to removeperceived patriarchalism and sexism from “God-talk”. Here we may notethat the changing of Names may also mean the changing of identity andthus the changing of doctrine concerning the Nature, Character andAttributes of God and God’s relation to the church and world.

3.The acceptance of women as clergy arose in the 1970s in the main-linedenominations not because the churches had studied the Bible and theyhad seen in its pages a failure by the contemporary churches to obeywhat is required by the Lord Jesus and his apostles. No! It was verymuch because of the feminist movement in western society with its callfor full rights, dignity and opportunities for women in all jobmarkets, including the churches. On the back of this powerful movement,texts from the Bible and arguments from theology were put forward, butthey were essentially in support of what arose in secular culture andrushed into the churches. Thus the presence of women as clergy standsas a permanent sign of the commitment of the churches to justice andhuman rights for women and as such it encourages other groups (e.g.,LesBiGay activists) to base their claims for recognition on humanrights and dignity, with fulfillment therapeutically. It may besuggested that the ordaining of women and their deployment has opened adoor wide through which others are entering to demand their fullrights, and the churches now do not know how to evaluate all theseclaims.

Other suggestions could be offered but these three are sufficient for the beginning discussion.

Historicallythe doctrine first used by the Church to explain to pagans why therewere no women priests in the churches, when there were women ministerat pagan temples, was that of God’s order for creation. God made man inhis own image; in the image of God created he male and female (Genesis1 and taken up by the Lord Jesus). God’s order is that the man is firstin order and the woman second (equal in dignity but not in order). Andlater the doctrine developed that as the Second Person of the Trinitybecame Incarnate as a Man, then only men whom He calls can be His iconwhen presiding at the Table of the Lord, where the Heavenly Banquet isexperienced, with the exalted Christ Jesus as Host.

One could almost say there are ‘two churches’ and mean by that nothing whatsoever about sexuality or even theological difference. There has emerged a democratic spirit so ruthless that it has exposed itself as totally at odds with Anglicanism and Anglican polity. ECUSA has become a deeply American phenomenon of denominationally enfranchised democracy, with Bishops deferring to it, until their own identity is virtually at death’s door.

. . . .

What I hear the ‘Windsor bishops’ asking for, in other words, is in part nothing more or less than the right to be bishops in an old fashioned sense, and recover or even discover a new polity for a US church whose heritage is allowing this kind of polity meltdown to occur.

We need to consider very carefully whether being a ‘constituent member’ of the Anglican Communion means having a polity more closely akin to Anglicans elsewhere, and now explicitly say so. These General Conventions have become parade examples of a polity gone wrong: almost more ruthless in their democratic, neurotic frenzying than any Southern Baptist gathering one might have considered, on its worst day. At least they are honest about their democracy and then learn to regulate it accordingly.

The number of references to the Holy Spirit were astonishing both in quantity and quality. Again and again I heard people refer with great confidence to the presence of the Holy Spirit in the gatherings and deliberations. I could not help but think of Bishop Butler’s remark to John Wesley that “this pretending after special revelations of the Holy Spirit is a horrid thing, a very horrid thing.” Among a great many people in the Convention there is clearly more confidence in their feeling that there is a present illumination of the Holy Spirit than in the scriptures or traditional teaching of the church. I suggest the Charismatic renewal movement from whom the church has had so many good things should look long and hard at this phenomenon and think what lessons are to be learned about grounding devotion to the Holy Spirit in sound doctrine.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Three cheers for all those bloggers and blog support people out there who worked really hard to keep this general convention covered, to keep the orthodox abreast of what was happening, and to keep people in touch with each other. Whitehall experienced more traffic than ever during the last several days (please come back, friends), and I know the load on some of the other blogs was positively tremendous. In particular, three cheers to Canon Harmon, who was not only a deputy (I believe), but along with the T19 Elves, managed to keep T19 up and running with very few hicoughs... especially once the backup got going. Three cheers also, especially, to Father Matt Kennedy, who must be ready to keel over, to Father Binky and the CaNN folks, who posted prolifically, and always with a dash of well-timed humor. Three cheers to our friends at Lent and Beyond who mobilized us spiritually (what's more important?), and to the e-people at Anglican Mainstream and the Network. Last, but certainly not least, thanks to Father Thorpus for some terrific reporting, and for one or two scoops! I know I'm leaving a lot of people out. Apologies. Thank you everybody.

You all deserve a few days vacation. And you certainly have my thanks and blessing.

Has it occured to anyone that all this talk about the "full inclusion" of LGBTQQ people into the life of the Church actually serves to exclude them from certain aspects of Church life? Here's how:

Every baptized Christian has the privelege and the responsibility to approach the Father, through the Son, and "with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." Our salvation is in Christ, and our salvation is a salvation from sin. And each and every single one of us is deeply marred by our sin.

The pundits of ECUSA's New Religion cut LGBTQQ people off from the throne of grace. They teach that it is only with fear and trepidation and second guessing about what is and what isn't a sin that we approach the throne of the Father's grace. Or, what is worse, they tell LGBTQQ people to approach the throne of the Father's grace with confidence that they do not need mercy and forgiveness for at least area of their sinfulness.

By teaching that homosex is not, in fact sinful, that it does not need to be washed with the blood of the Lamb, the teachers of the New Religion exclude LGBTQQ Christians from the fullness of the life of the Body of Christ. Our Lord was clear: he calls all, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, to himself. And we come to him by repentance.

"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Luke 5.32)

Lying across the pathway of repentance that leads to the loving and affirming embrace of our Lord is the insidious lie of ECUSA's New Religion: that repentance is not necessary if you are LGBTQQ. But The truth is: without repentance, there is no divine mercy, no love, no affirmation. Without repentance, the way to Christ, and to his love and affirmation is definitively blocked, and without Him, there is only judgment, only death.

[Note: LGBTQQ = Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer, and Questioning. Note too, that this little essay is in response to the Minority Report of Bp. Chane, et alia, entitled A Statement of Conscience, and to other expressions of the same damnable lies to which many in ECUSA have fallen victim.]

I'm moving this back to the top. I ask you to pray it, and ask the Lord to strengthen the faithful, especially the bishops. Ask him to put to flight heresy and schism.

This seems very appropriate. MM reminded me tonight of something very simple, but easily overlooked: to pray. All of you bloggers and blog readers: we are called to do more than eagerly follow the news of our Communion. We are called to pray and to love. Love and pray for those about whom you read and write. I'm serious. Here's a place to start. Take a few minutes and say this litany with a special intention for some or all of the following: the end of General Convention, against heresy and schism, for the Anglican Communion, for priests, (especially) for the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the persecuted faithful, for deputies, for all bishops, for conversion of heart, for gays, lesbians, and transgendered people, for the Network, for the bishops and dioceses of Fort Worth, San Joaquin, and Quincy, for the primates, for your own bishop, for your rector and those priests and deacons who serve you.

V. Lord, have mercy on us.R. Christ, have mercy on us. V. Lord, have mercy on us. Christ, hear us.R. Christ, graciously hear us. V. God the Father of Heaven, have mercy on us.God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.God the Holy Spirit, have mercy on us.Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.Heart of Jesus, Son of the Eternal Father, have mercy on us.Heart of Jesus, formed by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mother's womb, [etc.]Heart of Jesus, substantially united to the Word of God.Heart of Jesus, of infinite majesty.Heart of Jesus, holy temple of God.Heart of Jesus, tabernacle of the Most High.Heart of Jesus, house of God and gate of heaven.Heart of Jesus, glowing furnace of charity.Heart of Jesus, vessel of justice and love.Heart of Jesus, full of goodness and love.Heart of Jesus, abyss of all virtues.Heart of Jesus, most worthy of all praise.Heart of Jesus, King and center of all hearts.Heart of Jesus, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.Heart of Jesus, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead.Heart of Jesus, in whom the Father was well pleased.Heart of Jesus, of whose fullness we have all received.Heart of Jesus, desire of the everlasting hills.Heart of Jesus, patient and rich in mercy.Heart of Jesus, rich to all who call upon You.Heart of Jesus, fount of life and holiness.Heart of Jesus, propitiation for our offenses.Heart of Jesus, overwhelmed with reproaches.Heart of Jesus, bruised for our iniquities.Heart of Jesus, obedient even unto death.Heart of Jesus, pierced with a lance.Heart of Jesus, source of all consolation.Heart of Jesus, our life and resurrection.Heart of Jesus, our peace and reconciliation.Heart of Jesus, victim for our sins.Heart of Jesus, salvation of those who hope in You.Heart of Jesus, hope of those who die in You.Heart of Jesus, delight of all saints.

V. Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,R. spare us, O Lord.V. Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,R. graciously hear us, O Lord.V. Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,R. have mercy on us.

V. Jesus, meek and humble of Heart,R. Make our hearts like unto Thine.

Let us pray.

Almighty and eternal God, look upon the Heart of Thy most beloved Son and upon the praises and satisfaction which He offers Thee in the name of sinners; and to those who implore Thy mercy, in Thy great goodness, grant forgiveness in the name of the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who livest and reignest with Thee forever and ever. Amen.

So there was plenty of debate on the PB's resolution. Sources in the HoB tell me the debate there was "ahatchet job", "very political", that there wereattempts to amend the resolution but that they weredefeated, that the PB was "spazzing out".

Louie Crew spoke in the HoDep, saying he opposed theresolution, that it "cuts the tongue out of the HolySpirit." Other deputies supported it because it wasthe best we could do, but my sense was still thatthere was a noticeable split between the left and themoderates. This changed when PB-elect Jefferts Schoricame to speak to us. She said, "I find the languageexceedingly challenging", but it's the best we can do.This is NOT slamming the door on full inclusion ofGLBT folks. "I'm committed to full inclusion, ut thissi the best we're going to manage at this point in ourchurch's history."

There was an unscheduled moment of silence after herspeech. Debate continued. An amendment was offeredto put a time-limit on the 'moratorium' of GC 2009. This failed. The vote on the main resolution was byorders:Lay yes 72, no + div. 32; passed. Clergy yes 75, no + div. 34. Passed

Our official 'moratorium' then, to be in compliancewith Windsor, is a weak-willed suggestion that we notconsecrate any more gay bishops, and an absence of anystatement about same-sex blessings. I dont' think theCommunion will buy it.

The afternoon session will be a sleeper -- pass asmuch as you can without thinking, just to get thebusiness done by the mandatory closing time of 6PM.

I haven't had a chance to review any othercommentaries on the convention, but I look forward nowto a chance to check them out, check them against myexperience.

Today for the first time there was palpable tension inthe house of Deputies, and that was only because thePB and PB elect wanted something that the left wingdidn't. the PB got his way.

So it's day 9, and there are thunderstorms outside. This has had two effects: first, the PresidingBishop's address this morning (more about this later)was punctuated by blasts of thunder. Some said it wasthunder, others the voice of God, but I saw no dovedescend upon his head. Second, I came so close toactually getting to sit on the floor as a deputy andvote. One of our clergy deputies had to leave earlyto get his plane, and the plan was for the Bishop toappoint me in his stead (he has the authority to dothat.). The storms, however, have delayed his flight,so he stays, and I stay in the gallery. :(

The reason we received an address from the PB thismorning is that he called a surprise joint session todeal with the Windsor resolutions (don't know why theydon't do the last two days in joint session anyway,just to remove the problem of late amendments neededaction by the other house when the other house hasadjorned). There must have been politicking going onlate into the night at the Hyatt Regency Hotel,because Griswold got up this morning and said,essentially, that if we don't do SOMETHING, we'll getkicked out of the Communion. We don't want that,because we want to give our new PB and others thechance to convince the Communion through conversation. Essentially, he realized that saying nothing slitsour throats -- our last chance to have our cake andeat it too is to pass some manner of fudge and throughskillfull maneuvering to stay at the table. heoffered a resolution [paraphrased]:Resolved, that the 75th Gen. Conv. receive the WindsorReport's call for a process of reconciliation andhealing; and Resolved, that it urge standingcommittees etc. to exercise restraint by refrainingfrom consenting, electing (etc.) bishops whose mannerof life represents a challenge to the communion.

Period.

No moratorium on same-sex blessings.

Griswold is trying to re-forge the alliance betweenthe moderates and the left by throwing the left theirbone of same-sex unions, but by keeping the moratoriumon bishops. I dont' think it'll pass, but it'spending now. B033 is the number. It has to beformally moved, etc. to get into the schedule. butthere's no blinkin' way this will be perceived asWindsor compliant. It simply isn't, no matter how youslice it. I think the longer we wait for the vote,the more the deputies will see this and the lessthey'll be willing to pass it, Frank's appealnotwithstanding. But it will all depend on theefficiency of their politicking, who they've been ableto get to support this resolution against their betterjudgement. Note that he felt no need to compromisewith the right wing, except in the language, "Weaccept the Windsor Report ('s call for reconciliation,etc. -- even that doesn't stack up.)

so in the afternoon, a motion from the floor came,unlooked for, to reconsider the vote on A161. Thiswas entirely unexpected by most of the house. Thedeputy who so moved also let everyone know what sheintended by this: to restore the blue-book languagewhich preceeded the big hearing and the committee'sswing to the right -- essentially, to restore the richAnglican fudge that had first been proposed to thecommission. It was just that language that NT Wrightrailed against as being entirely inadequate toWindsor's requests. The motion to reconsider needed2/3 support to pass. If it passed, the substiutionwould be made, and the house would vote on A161 again,it needing only 50% + 1 to pass. Essentially, then,it was easier for the orthodox to defeat it at thelevel of the motion to reconsider than to let it gothrough and then have to defeat the fudgy resolutionon the floor. The vote to reconsider was taken: itreceived 59.1% support -- not enough to reconsider. The fudge had been defeated, but we still had nothingbut silence to give back to Windsor's call formoratoria on gay bishops and gay unions.

An analysis which I heard from my delegation, whichseems accurate to me, is that normally the moderatesin the middle vote with the left wing progressivesagainst the right wing orthodox. In this resolution,however, the ends were played against the middle. Neither the progressive left wing nor the orthodoxright wanted fudge: both have called for clarity oneway or the other. It was the moderates who wanted toapologize without apologizing, to have their cake anda chance, if the cards were skillfully played, to eatit too. But they lost.

there was an evening session at 7:30 which I was notable to attend, and from what my delegation has toldme nothing substantial was decided.

Day 9: last day, last chance.

There are some 40 resolutions that need concurrence,having already been passed in the HoB. There areothers that will probably never get considered byeither house. Rumor is that Werner and Griswold areboth interested in stringing all this legislation outas long as possible to avoid debate, or perhaps to beable to say to the Communion, "We tried, we reallydid, but we were just too busy to get a Windsorresponse through. Sorry."

So then they took up the Beisner consent. Thecommittee recommended consent, seeing as how thebishops had already consented. There was a minorityreport which is very well written and worth reading,if you can find it somewhere online. Kendall Harmonspoke first from the floor, saying [paraphrased] "thisis a broken church, and a broken moment. It's aquestion of the wider church, not any particulardiocese. This person could not even serve as apriest, a priest, in the diocese of South Carolina. How can we recognize him as a bishop?" Those whosupported Beisner argued something like this: How canyou vote against that face? He's a nice guy, we alllike him, we don't care in N. Cal. about his maritalproblems. We kind of like them. He's a niiiiiiceguy, really, so let's just vote him in. Theysucceeded. Rhetoric is dead.

Resolution A161 sought to establish moratoria on newbishops "whose manner of life may represent achallenge to the Communion" (the Archbp. of York andother voices from the wider communion have said thislanguage is too vague), and on same-sexblessings/marriages. The committee's report said[paraphrased] that there was a wide diversity of viewson the committee itself, that they had tried toadherer to the Windsor Report, and they believe thewider Communion will accept this language. This willkeep TEC in the dialogue, at the table, but notpassing it will threaten our status as part of thecommunion. One lesbian committee member said she didnot like a lot of this resloution, but she was mindfulof the Archbishop of York's question, "where are themarks of crucifixion?" We should "sacrifice" and"stand down our call for justice" for the sake ofunity. This response creates space for furtherconversation.

Debate was long and the HoDep had to adjourn for theevening. Yesterday, Day 8, they took it up again inthe morning.

First, however, they wanted to get Beisner's consentpassed because it has been such a strain on him andhis family to wait for consent. he's the one who'smarried for the third time. However, a motion wasmade from the floor to suspend consent until after thevote on A161, because Beisner might just be one ofthose bishops "whose manner of life represents achallenge to the wider communion." If we take thatseriously, said the deputy, we should wait on thisconsent. The motion needed 2/3 to pass, passed with67.4%.

so they went on to A161 again, this time allowingprocedural motions. Amendments and substitutions wereproposed, including one that was strictly Windsorcompliant. None passed. In the afternoon sesion theyfinally voted on the language of A161 that came out ofcommittee, that which had swung way right after thebig hearing. The vote was by orders with a divideddelegation counting as a 'no'. Lay votes: yes 38, no53, div. 15; that makes 38 yes vs. 68 no+div., motionfailed in the lay order. Cergy: 44 yes, 53 no, 14divided; that's 44 yes, 67 no + div.; motion fails inthe clergy. This meant we had almost no responsewhatsoever to the Windsor report's call for moratoria-- quite literally, silence. '

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

I have sources in purple shirts who verify DavidVirtue's allegation that the PB election was heavily,even unduly, influenced by Bp. Bruno of LA. Check outVirtueOnline for details. [Here is the link.]

The same sources tell me that the Network bishops andthose bishop who wish to be windsor-compliant aremeeting secretly every morning, often in theafternoons, and occasionally in the evenings.

Last night was debate on A160, the expression ofregret. With an amendment that changed 'breached' thebonds of communion to 'strained' (because they reallycan't believe any communion has been actuallybreached), the resolution passed the deputies. Theybegan debate on A161 last night, which effects themoratoria on bishops "whose manner of life representsa challenge to the Communion" and on same-sexblessings/marriages. Debate continued this morningwith a substitution being debated right now (noon-ish)to substitute in place of this reslolution another,that is strictly Windsor-compiant, even quoting fromthe WR. We'll see how that goes.

Word from the traditionalists is that this whole thingis carefully orchestrated, that everyone knows we'regoing to tell the Communion to go jump (and even putoutselves, with our 15 international member churches,in competition with the Anglican Communion) and takeour new PB and go. I'm not sure I see that happeningmyself: Special Committee #26 swung pretty far rightafter its big hearing, and the current Windsorresolutions are very close to being compliant. It isa battle, in HoDep debate, whether to try and fudgethe issue again or go for clarity one way or theother. I think I see the HoDep being comcerned tostay in the Communion, but I could be wrong. Debateis orchestrated to allow equal time, so it's hard togauge what the whole house thinks.

A special order was taken in the HoDep to put offdebate on Beisner's consent until today, day 8.

A160, the rsolution expressing regret for our actions,went into long debate last night. The committee said,[my paraphrase] "let's look at the big picture. TheABC asked Windsor commission for the 'highest degreeof dommunion given our differences." no one is beingasked to change their beliefs. The Windsor rept. istherefore NOT an ultimatum, nor should we giveultimatums back. We aim for continuing conversations. This resolution does not represent the view of anyone faction: it is therefore complex. No resolutioncan make abuse of itself impossible. Each of usshould be wiling to surrender our agendas to the HolySpriit in the diverse center.

A lesbian member of the committee testified that shedidn't like this resolution, but that she thought itreally was the right thing to do. Anyone who has beena part of the committee or really looked at thesituation abroad inevitably has their mind changed andsupports compliance with Windsor for the sake of unitywith the Communion. it's only those who are focusedon the sometime prophetic situation in the US thatwant to forget the communion.

A youth deputy actually said something coherent duringthis debate. I note this because by and large they'restill in the business of shouting parroted opinions inincoherent sentences. It would be more entertainingfor the PB to bring up an actual parrot to say "Polly andMolly want a marriage."

In committee debate, someone accused the AAC of beingfunded by the Institute for Religion and Democracy. The AAC briefing spent a lot of time denying this, adnthe president of the IRD spoke and denied it as well.

I think it's odd that they talk here over and overagain about how important our youth presence is, yetwe want to join the Religious Coalition forReproductive Choice.

Mission, for this convention, means the MilleniumDevelopment goals. I can't type now what the ninegoals are, but I know they were set by the U.N. Sonow the Episcopal church's great commission comes fromthe United Nations, not Matthew 28?

They presented the budget yesterday: all the speakers,like peeping chicks hungry for food, wanted to knowwhy their little program had been cut. The answerscan be put into two categories: "It wasn't, look onpage X;" or, "I'm sorry, but making Justice and Peaceour #1 budget priority through the MDG's just didn'tleave enough for your program." One [liberal] deputygot up and asked why a program that directly enablesher parish to minister adn evangelize received only40% of what it asked for? Drew Smith of CT explainedthat making the MDG's a priority took that program'sfunding. Mission?

The AAC briefing included a report by Bp. Beckwith:Jefferts Schoir was "the least qualified candidate",had never been a rector. She is "the perfect personto lead a dying church." Parsely, who came in 2nd,did NOT vote for Gene Robinson's consecration, butonly, he says, because he was afraid of what wouldhappen when he got back to his diocese. On secondthought, said Beckwith, maybe HE was the perfectperson to lead a dying church.

Here are some quotes from the Episcopal News Servicepress briefing re: Jefferts Schori's election:"historic", "groundbreaking", "palpable sense of theHoly Spirit", "with all due respect to those whodisagree, God led this." "Time and conversation willtake care of all concerns [in the AnglicanCommunion]", "All barriers are down, all baptizedindividuals have access to [ordination and the othersacraments]."

David Anderson said, "We will nto appeal to Canterbury[meaning, I think, the panel of reference] a secondtime. Justice delayed is justice denied."

Bp. Nazir-Ali was quoted as saying, "There are 2churches under one roof. Schism HAS occurred."

Resolution A014 -- eliminates bishop/clergy/lay quotasfor legislative committees -- this would give the PBand President of the HoDep almost unlimited ability tostack committees however they want.

Resolution D030 -- resolved... that we repent of theinstitutional prejudice and injustice perpetrated onindividuals or groups on the basis of gender, age,race, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation. WEreject any action that would give a wrongful witnessto the Gospel of Jesus Christ by enabling ignorance,intolerance, and lovelessness. "Gospel" at thisconvention is code for "social justice and radicalinclusion".

The elevation of Jefferts Schori has rekindled questions surrounding the ostensive ordination of women. The following is from MM, one of the smartest and and most devout women I've ever known, at Theology of the Body.

I consecrated my life to Jesus Christ when I was about three. I study theology. I start ministries and spend a lot of time figuring out how to better serve the Body of Christ. I preach. I evangelize. I am usually bursting at the seams with annoying evangelical zeal. I officiated at a marriage as a laywoman last fall; and this past weekend, I donned a cassock to assist at another friend's wedding. "You look GREAT in vestments," some ECUSA friends told me with a wink and a nudge. I was honored beyond words by their loaded statement. But I will never be a priest.

The ordination of women, celebrated yesterday by the [Episcopal Church's] decision to promote Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of Nevada as its presiding bishop on Sunday, making her the first woman to lead a church in the worldwide Anglican Communion, apparently enacts themes of "liberation" and "revolution" and "inclusion" familiar in Christ's renewal of the world; but the ordination of women and the installation of Bishop Katherine does not ring with the faithful tradition of the Church because it does not, in fact, accord with the actual enactment of Jesus.

The Church has, until the past century, always held that despite great and immediate need, no one might presume to take up the task of laboring in the Lord's fields without actually being sent by the Lord of the Harvest Himself. Christ fulfilled His own command and prayer that workers might be send among His people by selecting and sending twelve particular men and their deliberately ordained successors to continue His work in the world. The Church has long held that her authority to ordain her clergy is purely derivative from the enactment of Christ Himself in sending twelve particular men to be His apostles; as such, the Church simply posesses no authority to ordain women. Certainly women are pastorally skilled, intellectually and emotionally capable; certainly they posess every dignity and God-given right held in common with men; certainly the Church might ordain them on account of such capacities. But the Church, founded on historial realities bounded by particularity, simply does not have that option. The Church is bound, for better or for worse, to follow the example of her Lord, who chose twelve men to be His apostles.

Yes, this "limitation" has caused me some personl grief within the Tradition that is not mine to revise or re-create. But honestly, I'm not that worked up about the sacredotal impulse that so often provokes people to run to serve at the alter, as though the apostolate of all believers and the mediation of Christ's life into the world were not the privilege of every baptized.

I remember Mary. The archetypal woman in the life of our Lord and in the life of His Church was not made an apostle. Yet she is the one who definitively presents God to humanity in her own flesh so that He might take take us into His very life. Our Lord may have charged the male Peter with the care of His flock and the keys to His Kingdom, but He entered Mary's very body. It is Mary whose heart is so united with His as to be "pierced" with His. It is Mary who enjoins our Lord's first public act of service for His people. It is Mary who then commands servants in His name. And it is Mary, singled out among the twelve at Pentecost, who stands for womankind at the formation of the Church- more intimate with their Lord then they, more powerful than they, more honored than they- and yet, not an apostle. Mother of the Church, yes; bishop, no.

The Church has a Mother; and in Mary's motherhood, all women can comprehend the immediacy of God's calling to their innermost being, and the extent of their capacity to gift their very selves for His Church, and can rest in the profundity of this vocation.

Monday, June 19, 2006

At each step of the way, Rome pleaded with Anglicans to reject such grave departures from the orthodox Christian tradition. It may be that there will emerge from the breakup a new configuration of the Anglican Communion with which serious dialogue can be resumed. A few bishops of ECUSA and a larger number of clergy and parishes are involved in “continuing Anglican” movements and are working in tandem with the African and Asian provinces. A great deal depends upon how Canterbury, meaning the Church of England, positions itself in the rapidly advancing dissolution of what was the Anglican Communion. As of this week’s General Convention, however, one thing seems certain beyond doubt: The Episcopal Church in the U.S. has declared itself to be just another liberal Protestant denomination, in deliberate defiance of the Anglican Communion and in scornful indifference to a long history of hope for reconciliation with Catholicism. Yes, many, going back to John Henry Newman in the early nineteenth century, said that this would be the inevitable outcome of Anglicanism’s claim to be a “middle way” between liberalism and Catholicism, but it is nonetheless very sad to see it come to pass, and to see the self-congratulatory rejoicing of Episcopalians in celebratory assembly at the death of an honorable, if finally untenable, hope for greater Christian unity.

LAS VEGAS, June 18, 2021: Holding its 80th General Convention in Las Vegas this week, The Episcopal Church broke new ground by naming as its new Presiding Bishop Muffin, a 26-year old Rhesus Macaque from the Diocese of Los Angeles. Muffin, who holds an honorary Ph.D. in Theology from Yale Divinity School, had previously served as the Bishop of West Hollywood. Muffin is the first non-human primate to be elected as a Primate in the Anglican Communion, which faces schism over the appointment.

In a break with tradition, the installation mass was held immediately following the election in the Madonna Room of Circus Circus. The service featured a magnificent new organ-grinder concerto commissioned especially for the event, as well as a moving liturgical dance by the Folies Bergere showgirls. An ecumenical sermon was delivered by Sri Svanapanda Prabhubada of The Society for Krishna Consciousness, entitled “Jesus Schmesus – The Many Paths to Niceness.” During the offertory, the new bishop herself went up and down the aisles collecting donations in a tin cup. Communion was given using banana slices and mango juice instead of the traditional bread and wine.

Integrity, a group of moderate laity and clergy within The Episcopal Church, released a statement praising the selection of Muffy as a “bold move forward which demonstrates The Episcopal Church’s commitment to inclusivity for all living things.” Integrity spokescreature Shamu expressed hope that a future convention would go beyond “animal chauvinism” to elevate a being from one of the other kingdoms of life to the primacy. Bishop Phyllis Creeper of South Florida, a split-leaf philodendron, is considered a leading candidate for the next Episcopal convention in 2024.

.... The General Convention seems to be heading as expected towards a fudgedpseudo apology and temporary moratorium--though the liberals scored a nice move in getting the woman PB --they willI am sure try to say that anti-women issues are now the real driving factorbehind the conservatives to try and distract people from the sexualityagenda...--that is always what strikes one about the liberals they are so good atkeeping the agenda moving forward in one way or another such that when thereis a set back on one issue they instantly push on another --running circlesround the orthodox all the while and relentlessly pushing back theboundaries. Mind you I imagine Henry Parsley is hopping mad as he fellvictim to the liberalism to which he has so tastefully sold out for so long!

Apparantly the Diocese of Dallas had an emergencyStanding committee meeting last night and communicatedafterward with their delegation here. This morningthe chair of their delegation rose to the microphonein the HoDep to request immediate alternataiveprimatial oversight.

I have it from a source in a purple shirt that there'sa suspicion that some of the orthodox bishops votedfor Jefferts Schori simply because she was the 'worst'and this would push us over the edge. Others amongthe orthodox voted for her over Parsley becauseParsely has been so 'mean' to the orthodox in hisdiocese, and Jefferts Schori has less chance of being'mean.'

More later. All the Windsor resolutions are coming upin the HoDep today. Watch the site I referenced yesterday for the current text and status of these.

Father Thorpus

Correction: it is the Diocese of Ft. Worth, I'm pretty sure, that Father Thorpus means when he says "Diocese of Dallas" in the first paragraph.

"I'm thrilled," said the Rev. Susan Russell, the president of Integrity, an advocacy group for gay and lesbian Episcopalians. "I'm a cradle Episcopalian. I remember when there were no women priests. I remember when they said the church was going to split over the ordination of women. What we're giving as a Father's Day gift to the Anglican Communion is a woman primate, and that is wonderful."

As I told you, I took the day off for Sabbath and onlyconnected with Convention news when i attended theBerkeley dinner this evening. That's when I foundout. They elected The Rt. Rev. Katharine JeffertsSchori, Bishop of Nevada, for the next PresidingBishop. The only woman on the slate, and the mostliberal candidate, fully in support of the inclusionof gays and lesbians at all levels of the church.

Her bio from the Episcopal News Service is pastedbelow.

At the Berkeley dinner the mood was elated. Bp. JohnChane of Washington, D. C. said that this proves"listening to the Holy Spirit drives a process that byhuman hands would have been impossible." He saidthere was not a lot of politicking at the election,but lots of hymns and prayer. Bp. Jeffrey Rowthorn,retired bishop of Europe, sat at my table: he saidthat as they read out the count for the last ballot,there was a moment of stunned silence, like everyonewas thinking "i can't believe we just did that." Thenthe whole place erupted in applause. I sat next toGeorge Conger, priest and reporter for the LivingChurch and other publications. He showed me theballot count. She was elected on the 5th ballot, buthad tied for the lead on the 1st and stayed there.Second in the running was Henry Parsley, Bp. ofAlabama. Jenkins never had a chance. After about thesecond ballot, all the traditionalists seem to havemigrated toward Parsley and the progressives towardSchori. Congar said he was on the phone with Lambethpalace just after it happened -- the Archbishop ofCanterbury was in evening prayer and had no statementas of yet. He called back 30 min. later and was toldthe prepared statement (ready for the insertion of thename of whoever won) had been torn up, and theArchbishop himself would write the official statement(which he rarely does). Congar predicted the Queenwould be incensed: she never appoints women priests tothe chaplaincies she controls, and the Queen Mother(God rest her soul) refused to recieve communion fromwomen priests. congar and I discussed theramifications of this election for the Communion.Several provinces, of course, still do not believewomen to be validly ordained. This means they can'tbe assured of the validity of any Eucharists,ordinations, or consecrations of bishops that Schoripresides over (I don't know WHAT we'll do in Albanycome September, when our consecration is scheduled.Hopefully Griswold will still be in office.). Thismeans our very claim to the historic episcopate couldbe in jeaopardy in the future. (great move forecumenical relations, I gotta say in all sarcasm)When I asked Congar what the Primates' meetings willbe like, he replied, "Well, they'll have to buildanother bathroom."

Also present at the dinner were the Rev. Harold Lewis,dressed in his best white suit, Bp.Bennison, and Harry Attridge. Dean Britton expressedover and over again, during his own remarks andinbetween the remarks of others, as MC, what a greatday this was and how elated we all must feel. Heclaimed that "as a church we have grown impatient withour lack of attention to the gospel [by which he meansthe gospel of social justice and inclusion)" and that"we are all feeling the pressure of the Spirit callingus back to the bedrock of the identity of the churchas a place of the gospel." He repeated several timesthat students at Berkeley want to be firmly "groundedin the gospel".

congar showed me some of his notes from short reactioninterviews with several important figures. KiethAckerman, when asked what do we do, said somethinglike, "Well, if you believe our church is protestant,get out now. If you believe our church is catholic,stay in and wait for the councils of the church -- ina catholic church decisions are made by the [wider]councils and not by one particular church." That'sslightly paraphrased because I dont' have the directquote in front of me. Words like 'devastating' and'destructive' were used by my bishops. Most everyoneelse, though, is highly elated.

Congar thought this left-ward swing would be balancedby a right-ward swing on the Windsor response. Iwouldn't bet on it, if my time watching the HoB is anymeasure.

Ok, that's all I've got. More tomorrow when I get theresponse of my delegation and can talk to my bishops.God help us. I'd love to hear your thoughts, ofcourse, but mostly just be assured your prayers aremingled with mine.

The Peace of the Lord,Thorpus

Katharine Jefferts Schori, 51, was consecrated theninth Bishop of Nevada on February 24, 2001. Sheserves a diocese of some 6,000 members in 35congregations. Jefferts Schori is the first womanselected as a nominee for Presiding Bishop.

Her service to the wider church includes currentmembership on the Special Commission on the EpiscopalChurch and the Anglican Communion; the Board ofTrustees, Church Divinity School of the Pacific inBerkeley, California; the CREDO Advisory Board; theHouse of Bishops peer coaching program; the GeneralBoard of Examining Chaplains; the Board for ChurchDeployment; the House of Bishops' PastoralDevelopment, Racism, and Planning Committees; theCourt for Review of a Trial of a Bishop; the Episcopalvisitor team for the Community of the Holy Spirit; andthe Bishops of Small Dioceses group.

From 2001-2003 she was a member of the 20/20 StrategyGroup, and served as secretary of the House of BishopsMinistry Committee at the 2003 General Convention.

She is the author of "When Conflict and Hope Abound,"Vestry Papers (March-April 2005); "BuildingBridges/Widening Circles" in Preaching Through HolyDays and Holidays: Sermons that Work XI, Roger Allingand David J. Schlafer, eds. Morehouse (2003);"Multicultural Issues in Preaching" in PreachingThrough the Year of Matthew: Sermons That Work X,Roger Alling and David J. Schlafer, eds. Morehouse(2001); and "The Nag" in Preaching Through the Year ofLuke: Sermons That Work IX, Roger Alling and David J.Schlafer, eds. Morehouse (2000). Her Maundy Thursdaysermon was included in What Makes This Day Different?by David Schlafer, Cowley (1998).

She is an active, instrument-rated pilot with morethan 500 hours logged.

At the time of her election as bishop of Nevada,Jefferts Schori was assistant rector at the EpiscopalChurch of the Good Samaritan in Corvallis, Oregon,where she also served as pastoral associate, dean ofthe Good Samaritan School of Theology, andpriest-in-charge, El Buen Samaritano, Corvallis. Shewas ordained deacon and priest in 1994. Prior toordination, she was a visiting assistant professor atOregon State University's Department of ReligiousStudies, a visiting scientist at Oregon StateUniversity's Department of Oceanography, and anoceanographer with the National Marine FisheriesService in Seattle.

She received a B.S. in biology from StanfordUniversity, 1974; an M.S. in oceanography from OregonState University, 1977; a Ph.D. from Oregon StateUniversity, 1983; an M.Div. from Church DivinitySchool of the Pacific, 1994; and a D.D. from ChurchDivinity School of the Pacific, 2001.

Jefferts Schori was born March 26, 1954, in Pensacola,Florida. She has been married to Richard Miles Schori.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

All of the classicalanglican.net blogs (Titusonenine, etc.) are down, doubtless due to huge traffic upsurges. In the meantime get all your news at Whitehall! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Or, given that I get most of my news from the classicalanglican.net blogs, and they are inoperative for the moment, try Anglican Mainstream. They've got lots of updates.

COLUMBUS, Ohio - The Episcopal Church on Sunday elected Nevada BishopKatharine Jefferts Schori as the first female chief pastor of thedenomination and the first female leader in the history of the worldAnglican Communion.

The choice of Schori as presiding bishop complicates the alreadydifficult relations between the American denomination and its fellowAnglicans.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

Resolution A095 commits us to full civil rights forGLBT people. What's bad about this resolution is thatit commits us to an understanding of sexuality thatleads to the conclusion that it's all about 'civilrights.' I don't agree at all that sexuality is acivil rights issue, nor do many in the church, and Idont' appreciate the attempt to make that the officialview of the Episcopal Church.

Resolution A053 commits us to joining ChristianChurches Together in the USA, or CCT-USA, the largestgroup of churches ever to enter an ecumenicaldialogue. I like this, but it will be interesting tosee the fruit of it in the upcoming years.

Resolution A054 gives guidelines for bishops andpriests participating in ordinations for otherdenominations, and them in ours. Why can weacknowledge that ordination is an act that 'belongs[only] in ecclesial communion" but we can'tacknowledge that sex is an act that belongs only inmarriage? Go figure.

Resolution A159-166 These are the ones everyone iswatching, that deal with our response to the WindsorRept. and the Anglican Communion. So far all arestill in committee or pending for future action.

Resolution D049 -- the canos "are to be completelyrewritten so as to change the institution of marriageto a civil event presided over by an agent of thestate and requiring that members of the clergy beresponsible solely for the blessing of the union as aHoly Act and thus no longer be authorized by thechurch to act as agents of the state for any kind ofcivil marriage or civil union." Hmm.. I don't quiteknow whether I like this or not. I'd love to hearWhitehall's readers on this resolution.

Resolution B023 -- The Episcopal notes that it "may bein systemic decline" and wants to respond to this by"initiating. . . a national consultation on methodsand strategies to reverse the decline in [all?]mainline denominations." Yet we can't let theResolution reaffirming Jesus as the only way out ofcommittee. Wonder why we're in decline?

And from our beloved Youth Presence comes this tidbitof wisdom, reported in Episcopal Life's ConventionDaily (winner of the feel-good paper of the year awardfor journalistic optimism): Our prayer book is alreadyoutdated and it is hard for my generation to relate toeverything in it," said Hannah Anderson, from NorthernCalifornia. She guestured to seven young adults whojoined her at the podium. "Standing behind me is thefuture of the church," she said. "I dont' think youwant to lose that. Revise the prayer book and nexttime there might be more of us here."

Ok, so first of all, they cant' relate to the BCPbecause they can't read, because the schools suck. Ifit's outdated after 25 years, that's because thesekids can't remember back more than 5 or 10, and StarWars Episode II is outdated to them. I note that the1662 book in England lasted longer, as has the KJV,oddly enough, even without teenagers supporting it.Whaddya know? Second, she's asking for a BCP revisionby next Gen con? What the heck? That takes decades.These kids don't know what the heck is going on.Listen to the lauded 'wisdom' of the youth presenceand we'll be including spongebob liturgies and prayersto the Creator of Xmen. Think we're 'trendier thanthou' now? Third, the youth weren't elected, theywere appointed. Them being there has absolutelynothing to do with whether youth are connecting to ourliturgies. But this kid doesn't know that. Andeverybody says, Awwww, claps, and marvels at the'mouths of babes.' Lord, have mercy.

Some resolutions that are all either pending in theHoDep or in committee (you can track the status ofthese resolutions at www.gc2006.org/legislation/):

Resolutions to limit the introduction of newresolutions to 60 days before the next GC.

Resolution D084 to commit us to closed communion --only the baptized.

Resolution D013 -- Deputies want a voice in theelection of the Presiding bishop (right now it's justthe bishops -- similar to the election of a pope)

Resolution B031 -- a resolution to protect theologicalminorities in diocese. If this is needed, has DEPOsucceeded?

Resolution D055 -- supporting the ACC resolution onglobal warming. "Include enviornmental education as anintegral part of all theological training." did youhave room for that in YOUR seminary curriculum? putthat in place of, um, history, or maybe bible, or howabout sexual misconduct, as the 'cause du jour'?

Also this one asks us to 'revise our liturgies andcalendar (?!) and lectionaries (revise the bible?!) inways that more fully reflect the role and work of Godas creator." It also commits us to political activism"before governments" to end global warming. I thoughtit was the Christian right that wanted to mix churchand politics. This would mean it would be an officialchurch act to be a political activist -- shouldn't theIRS have a say in this? would it threaten our statusas a tax-exempt non-profit? Surely this, if passsed,will lead to a showdown with some circuit courtsomewhere.

Resolution D073 -- The "government of the UnitedStates be encouraged to grant asylum to those whose .. . lives are threatened" by either being gay oradvocating for GLBT rights. "Resolved, that theEpiscopal church aid in the resettlement of suchindividuals. . . " Again, wasn't it the Christianright that wants to mix church and state?

Resolution B006 is a toothless reslution supportingseminarians with educational debt. If they reallywanted to help, they'd fund our educations.

Resolution A129 - The Episcopal Church is officiallyevolutionist. it "affirms God as creator" adn affirmsthat it's ok to believe ebolution; then it encouragesteaching "according to the best scientific standards"(i.e. evolution) and seeks the assistance of scienceexperts to help us determine what really is validscientific knowledge. Ok, so I could care less aboutevolution itself. What bothers me about thisresolution is that it seems to be targeting thesupposedly fundie right wing. This is aggressiveliberalism, not tolerant or cooperative in the least.You know, of course, that 'valid scientific knowledge'means 'tell us why the fundies are nuts' instead of'show us the proper limits and boundaries of science,and where the difficult boundaries may be betweenscience, philosophy, and religion.'

Hi, Father WB. Hope your relocation is going ok. Here aresome thoughts on day five. I'm on a public computermonitor with a 5 minute limit, so this will probablycome in chunks.

Day five reaffirmed my impression that the HoDep isdull as can be. They've gotten the voting techniquesdown ok, but there's still nothing going on.Everybody's noting how tame it is thus far. THebishops, on the other hand, allow plenty of debate,and they're actually getting stuff done.

For a church that talks so much about the sabbath,you'd think we would schedule a lighter day on Sunday.No such luck. Saturday's (today) a little lighter inthe morning due to the UTO ingathering mass, but we'vehad a long legislative session in the afternoon, ifonly the HoDep could manage to do more than consent tolegislation passed already in the HoB and run a fewelections in 4 hours. Actually, though, the electionsare really very important precisely because nosignificant work gets done on the floor of the house.It all happens in committee, even the weeding out ofcandidates for PB gets done by a committee. If youwant to make a substantive contribution to the church,committee is the place to do it, and do it withimpunity and no accountability, I might add.

Excuse my tardiness in posting Father Thorpe's (our inside man's) convention reporting. I've spent eight hours in the car today, driving from Connecticut to Virginia. Here are his thoughts on days 3 and 4:

Day three:More voting tehcnological difficulties in the HoDep.I stepped out to get literature from everybody I couldthink of: Via Media, Integrity, AAC, ACN, you name it.There's lots of opportunity for group to get theirmessages out here, but you have to know where to look.

Took the afternoon off for family time. Ate dinnerwith the Albany delegation.

Day four:Morning was encouraging, afternoon was discouraging.I've been altrenating days between the HoDep and HoB.Today was HoB. I began at the Forward in Faith NorthAmerica Eucharist, held at the same time as theConvention Eucharist. Quite a contrast:FifNA Euch (hereafter FE) - processional cross rightup front and center, behind the altar. ConventionEucharist (hereafter CE) - I had to look for a cross,finally finding it off to the side. FE - also centralbehind the altar, a large banner-icon of Christ. CE -no visual imagry that reflected religious themes: onlyflowers and sunsets. FE - music was simple, a singleorgan. CE - music was glorious and varied, orchestrasand choirs included. FE - Firmly Anglo-catholicliturgically, with incense, cassocks and surplices.CE - convention style liturgy, which means just thebasics (to keep it simple), broad choreography to beeasily seen, etc. Alb and stole, no incense. FE -tone of sermon was persecuted, offended, dependentupon divine intervention, conscious of division. CE -tone of sermon was confident, victorious, vibrant, nomension of division or tension in the ranks. FE - uponapproaching the altar, I began to weep when I lookedin the eyes of Christ in the icon; had to dry my eyesand glasses when I got back to my seat. CE - I had toimagine a crucifix myself, because there is no imagryof Christ in the place. it was still meaningful to meas a Eucharist, but only because I brought thatmeaning with me by repeating to myself phrases thathad not been heard in the liturgy, such as "Thank you,Lord, for washing my sins away." at the FE I feltmeaning thrust upon me. This last affect is, granted,purely subjective, but it points out the fact thatthere was no image or visual invocation of Christ inthe convention eucharist for me to contemplate, whilesuch things were given high importance int eh FE.

So there were three signs for me that the church is,at least in some measure, healthy. First, being ableto weep at the icon of Christ -- we are still able toworship Christ and weep for love of Him in our church.Second, I heard a bishop (with whom I usuallydisagree strongly) speak of having heard the Holyspirit tell him something and him obeying. We have achurch where the leaders sometimes listen to theSpirit, genuinely hear Him, and obey. This ishealthy. Finally, I saw a woman praying over herfood. We still have a church where people areencouraged to express their faith in public and takeit seriously that way. This is healthy.

but we are not entirely healthy. There's still muchwork to do.

The afternoon was the HoB debate over some of theAnglican communion resolutions. I dont' have time nowto go into details, but let me say I think Robert'srules of order are outdated and inappropriate for theHoB, that the house was not served well by the way itsofficers ran the session. I'm also upset at theirdisregard of the Arch.bp. of york's advice and theirstrengthening of the impulse toward 'independence'within the bond of Communion.

Friday, June 16, 2006

I've been up all night (its 4:00 a.m.) getting ready for the movers who will be arriving in about four hours. I couldn't stay away from Larry King Live though. Larry had on his show +Gene Robinson, +Frank Griswold, David Anderson+, and sundry representatives from other Christian groups (a Catholic priest, a well-spoken Southern Baptist, a lesbian UCC Pastor, and a gay, conservative, lay Catholic).

Here are my thoughts: +Griswold came across as really weird. +Robinson came across as being a nice guy. Canon Anderson came across as not a very good spokesman, letting a number of rhetorical opportunities slip by, and occasionally sliding into seeming incoherence. The Baptist did pretty well. The lesbian UCC pastor was pretty lackluster. The RC priest did alright; seemed nicer but just as orthodox as Canon Anderson. Larry seemed clearly to sympathize with the liberals.

The program reminded me of what I believe: (1) That its not fair for homosexual Christians to have an exemption from their particular sinful proclivities. What about my sinful proclivities? Why don't I get any exemptions? What's so special about homosexual sex such that it isn't subject to moral critique, whereas simple fornication or bygamy is? Its not as if people don't have innate inclinations to fornicate and bygamize. (2) The gay, lay Catholic kept talking about how sex is just a small part of his gayness, that its more about love and commitment and friendship and what not. But if that's so, then what's so terrible about the conservative position? It only targets a very small part of being gay (i.e. sex). What conservative is against gay people being commited, being friends, or loving one another? (3) The notion that a homosexual orientation is a "part of who gays are" is a diabolical lie. Sexual attraction, homo or hetero, is not a part of who anyone is fundamentally. That would mean that without that homo or hetero inclination, they would stop being who they are. But that is incoherent. If I stop or start having a particular sexual inclination (a.k.a. "orientation"), I won't thereby stop or start being Father WB. On this score, +Robinson, +Griswold and co. need to go back and take a crash course on Aristotelian Metaphysics. That's not something I would normally recommend, but I think it would really help in their cases.

PS: Another thing: Bishop Robinson mentioned Jesus ministry among those "on the margins," and the fact that he was always associating with tax collectors and sinners. But the problem in ECUSA is not that people want to be with gays and lesbians -- that would be terrific -- but that they want to say that these people, qua gay and lesbian, are actually not sinners. And that is a very deep point of difference between their ministries and that of our Lord. Our Lord's own commentary about his ministry among those on the margins was that they need a physician, that they are spiritually sick (Mark 2.17). Our Lord's ministry was all about repentance, turning from sin (Matthew 4.17), and his consistent message to those on the margins to whom he ministered and among whom he healed, was, without condemnation: "go and sin no more" (John 8.11). It was NOT "Go, for you have not been sinning to begin with."

The operative phrase being "little chance of further catholic-episcopal dialogue."

In some ways walking around the Episcopal gathering at the ColumbusConvention Center was much like a Catholic Convention. There were people talking theology and men in collars and yes sisters in habits. There are a few Episcopal nuns left. I was told there are still 4 orders of Episcopal priests and brothers and 32 orders of sisters. I have no idea if that is correct. An Episcopalian Franciscan, named Brother Clark gave me those numbers. However, there were also many differences between this gathering and a Catholic gathering. There were a number of women in collars. The number of clergy and lay people with the gay flag stamped on their nametag was quite sizeable. Tuesday night's Eucharist celebration, dubbed the U2charist (their words not mine) was to say the least a bit different than what most traditional Catholics are accustomed to seeing.The U2charist was a combination of celebrating the Eucharist and Bono's, the lead singer of the Irish rock group U2, social activism.

And here is a very interesting bit:

Dave HartlineWhat about the decline of the mainstream Protestant churches that have embraced a more liberal theology?

Bishop RobinsonI think the Bush Administration has a way of scaring Americans about minorities and other religions. They scared us into war as well.People go with what they are familiar with in times of trouble. However, I want to be clear. I call myself an Evangelical.We need to talk more about the Living God and less about church.People’s eyes glaze over when over whey they hear the word church.

Huh. +Robinson sounds a little paranoid. "What's wrong with the mainlines?" "Well, the Bush Administration...." And it would be amusing, if it weren't so sad, that Bishop Robinson finds common ground with Evangelicalism in their common lack of an adequate (to say nothing of orthodox) ecclesiology. Read the whole thing here.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Daily Eucharist: When it came time to pass the peace,I turned around to shake hands, and there was PBGriswold. So I shook his hand.

In the morning I sat in on the HoB. Much moreexciting than the HoDep, just because there's morereal debate and they can actually vote without havingto spend an hour and a half getting instructions fortheir electronic keypads like the Deputies do.

The bishops took up debate on several resolutions, themost significant of which was one removing the rightto vote in that house from retired bishops. There waslong debate over this, and finally it was sent back tocommittee.

A youth deputy was allowed to address the bishops. Hespoke of how great it would be if we could all beblind to theological differences. Dang thosetheological differences! If only we could forgettheology, how happy we could all be, living in ayellow submarine and all. He also said the church'smission was to 'spread peace, love, and happiness.' Is this what our youth are learning aboutChristianity? I heard another youth delegate addressSpecial Committee 26, and he asserted with allvehemence that there had never been a centralauthority in the Anglican Communion, that respondingto Windsor as to an authority was completely out ofline. I guess he hasn't studied the reign of GoodKing Charles, or Elizabeth, or Henry, or really any ofAnglican history. The Youth delegates, so far,haven't added a single constructive thing. All we'reteaching them is to have zeal without knowledge, tospeak with vehement ingnorance in the presence oftheir betters, and to think they're more importantthan they are. Oh yes, and to interrupt the HoB totell stories from camp.

The HoB voted to adopt the Revised Common Lectionary. The best question asked, I thought, was "who, then,are we giving control of our bible to?" Theresolution said we would start in 2007 printing BCP'swith the new lectionary, and whoever opposes thischange would have until 2010 to get in line. Tell methis: a parish has 100 BCP's, and needs 50 new ones. These new ones have the new lectionary, while the oldones don't. Isn't that going to be confusing? And doyou who have your own prayer books want to go out andbuy a new one? Completely aside from the question ofwhether to adopt the Revised Common Lectionary (whichI could go either way on), there's the question of HOWto adopt it. This resolution was impractical, andwe'll see if those concerns come up in the HoDep. What the bishops should have done, if they wanted todo this, is to direct whatever Committee will be incharge of the next BCP revision to be sure it containsthe new Lectionary.

The AAC lunchtime briefing was good. Jack Ikerreported on the HoB. Maryn Minns is on Committee 26and reported on its work. NT Wright's paper showed upand everybody read it right there.

After lunch the HoB had some secret ballots, and theDeputies still couldn't figure out their votingmachines, so I left early after visiting the exhibits. I asked the Via Media booth whether they had dailypublications and analyses: they looked at me blankly,then said, No, but hey, that's a great idea. It is agreat idea -- it's what the AAC is doing. Clearly theorthodox groups are more organized here, between thesedaily digests, their own offsite masses in themorning, the lunchtime briefings, and their ability todisseminate information like NT Wright's paper. ViaMedia's head is spinning, and it'll be interesting tosee if they try to catch up. but lest anyone thinkthis disparity is evidence of a vast right wingconspiracy, let me say that the opposition being setup here is not between the AAC and Via Media, orIntegrity; but between the AAC and its affiliates andthe ECUSA administration. The liberals are, in fact,well organized and in control of convention processesincluding committee work, and it's this monolithicforce that the AAC and it affiliates are working tobust up.

Can't get a read on the new president of the HoDep. She's doing a good job with procedure, though, despitehaving to fight the confusion around the whole keypadthing. Imagine having to explain your own cell phoneto 830 people and get them to use it correctly.

That's it for day two. I'll try to send thoughts onday three tomorrow.. . . .

In the evening I attended Special Committee 26'shearing. This is the committee charged with craftingthe resolutions responding to Windsor. There were1500 seats -- all full, plus more in the balcony (Igot the absolutely last one), plus standing room,full, plus a line outside in the lobby listenin to anaudio feed. I recorded 58 of the probably 65statments to the committee: 8 liked the resolutions asthey stand ('duplicitous' according to NT Wright); 24wanted full compliance with Windsor (the conservativeshad their talking points from Wright's paper); 21wanted clearer language stating that we have nothingto repent for, that what we did in 03 was good andright and we're going forward; and 5 were 'other'. Bob Duncan and Gene Robinson spoke back to back, bypure coincidence. Robinson's statement got on TV thismorning, of course. Duncan quoted Wright's paper andsaid he believed it was impossible to hold theprogressive and othrodox parties together in onechurch. His Grace the Archbishop of York made anunscheduled appearence and was hustled to the front ofthe line: he agreed with Wright that the resolutionsas they stand are inadequate to meet Windsor'sdemands. Susan Russell, president of Integrity, andthe Director of Changing Attitudes UK both spoke, bothsaid Windsor is not monolithic but is open tointerpretation. Those bishops present who had wideexperience in other parts of the Communion were of theopposite opinion.